ndep bureau of water quality planning

1

NDEP Bureau of Water Quality Planning

Review of LahontanReservoir Water Quality Standards

January 15, 2013

What are Standards and How Are They Used?

2

Required by State Law and Federal Clean Water Act

Define the water quality goals for a surface water Beneficial uses are defined Water quality criteria as needed to protect the beneficial uses

Used to assess health status of a surface water

Used to establish limitations for surface water discharge permits

Used to guide voluntary nonpoint source improvement projects

Why Now?

BWQP Strategic Plan – Improve water quality standards (appropriate beneficial uses and water quality criteria)

Lahontan Reservoir standards haven’t been reviewed since 1984 NDEP has been considering the need for years, but effort

hadn’t risen as a priority Check validity of assumptions used in 1980s – nutrient loads

have changed significantly ~50% reduction in phosphorus loads ~60% reduction in nitrogen loads

3

Why Now? For several years, NDEP has been

working with Reno, Sparks, TMWRF, Washoe County and TMWA in a 3rd

Party review of the Truckee River Nitrogen and Phosphorus TMDL TMDL sets load limits for point and

nonpoint sources TMDL will be constrained by

Truckee River water quality standards Review is underway for

non-tribal portion Tribal Truckee River/Pyramid

Lake water quality standards Recently established

Lahontan Reservoir water quality standards

4

5

Key Elements of Water Quality Standards

1) Designated beneficial uses

2) Criteria to protect beneficial use

3) Antidegradation provision (RMHQs)

6

Municipal or domestic supply Irrigation Watering livestock Propagation of aquatic life (warm water

fish)Species of concern – walleye,

channel catfish and white bass Propagation of wildlife

Beneficial Uses Assigned to Lahontan Reservoir

7

Industrial Supply Recreation involving contact with the

water (swimming) Recreation not involving contact with the

water (boating)

Beneficial Uses Assigned to Lahontan Reservoir

8

Existing uses Public concerns Desired potential uses

Factors in Designating a Beneficial use

9

Numeric values which protect usesEPA criteria are guidelines in

establishing standardsUtilize sound scientific rationale

Aquatic life, recreation, municipal/domestic water supplyMain uses with most restrictive water

quality criteria

Water Quality Criteria

10

Lahontan Reservoir WaterQuality Criteria

Beneficial Uses NAC 445A.1792

Routine Pollutants NAC 445A.1824

Toxics – Statewide criteria NAC 445A.1236 - Not part of this

review

11

Lahontan Reservoir Routine Pollutant Criteria by Use

Use ParameterMunicipal/ Domestic Supply

NitrateColorTotal dissolved solidsChloridesSulfate

Contact Rec pHTotal phosphorusE. ColiFecal coliform

Use ParameterAquatic Life

TemperatureTotal phosphorusNitriteTotal ammoniaDissolved oxygenTotal suspended solidsTurbidityAlkalinity

Wildlife pHIrrigation Sodium adsorption ratio

Currently not meeting TSS, turbidity, total phosphorus standards (2008-10 Integrated Report)

12

Lahontan Reservoir Monitoring Sites, 2003-05

13

Total Phosphorus Levels

Square = Median; Box = 25%-75%; Whisker = Non-Outlier Range

2003 2004 2005Year

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

TP (m

g/l)

LR1A LR1 LR2 LR3 LR4 LR5

TP Standard = 0.06 mg/l

14

Total Suspended Solids


2003 2004 2005Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (m

g/l)

TSS Standard = 25 mg/l


15

Turbidity


2003 2004 2005Year

0

50

100

150

200

250

Turb

idity

(NTU

)

Turbidity Standard = 50 NTU


16

Secchi Depth Readings


2003 2004 2005

Year

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sec

chi D

epth

(fee

t)


Some Key Aspects to be Examined

Existing standards are structured for a stream not a reservoir Breakout reservoir from reach segment

Break out reservoir by basin Need to recognize stratification and its impacts on dissolved

oxygen, temperature, etc. Evaluate appropriateness of beneficial uses Evaluate existing RMHQ Antidegradation standards

17

Some Key Aspects to be Examined

Nutrient standards set only for phosphorus Phosphorus standard based upon relationship with Algae

levels Preliminary evaluations suggests that relationship may

not be appropriate Evaluate Algae target (chlorophyll-a) – driven by beneficial

use needs Evaluate the need to add nitrogen criteria for algae control

18

19

No applicable nutrient or algal criteria recommendations from EPA Literature, studies, other state regulations provide a range

of chlorophyll-a thresholds for the protection of various beneficial uses Aquatic life (warmwater, coldwater), recreation, drinking

water• Conflict between the uses

– Warmwater fish yield increases with algal level increases

– Recreation use can sometimes be the most restrictive

Some Challenges for Lahontan Reservoir

20

Total phosphorus standard (0.06 mg/l) exceeded in 100% of the samples (2003-05, 2012) Flow weighted averages > 0.06 mg/l

Carson River - ~ 0.20 mg/l Truckee Canal - ~ 0.08 mg/l

Internal phosphorus loading Based upon estimates by Richard-Haggard (1982), internal loading

enough to result in TP = 0.06 mg/l during average storage conditions 2012 (very low inflows) – TP increased 2X – 5X from June to

September NRS 445A.520(2)

Standards should be reasonably achievable CFR 131.10(d)

Uses attainable through effluent limits, cost-effective and reasonable BMPs

Some Challenges for Lahontan Reservoir

21

Develop Rationale and Petition Hold a series of stakeholder meetings

Obtain input to consider during development of DRAFT Rationale and Petition Public workshops

• This meeting and subsequent interim workshops CRC WQ Workgroup Other meetings, information gathering efforts

• TCID, NDOW, State Parks, USFWS, USBR• Others as requested

Present Rationale/Petition prior to submittal to SEC and obtain input

Public hearing with State Environmental Commission (early 2014)

Submittal to State Legislative Committee and AG’s Office Submittal to EPA (mid 2014)

Main Steps in Process

22

Re-start CRC Workgroup Serving as more of a Focus Group ~4 meetings over the next 6-12 months

Ongoing opportunity for stakeholder input as NDEP works through the technical aspects of the review Beneficial use review Nutrient criteria Other criteria – TSS, turbidity, alkalinity, etc. RMHQs

Public workshops to the broader group will be held once NDEP has develop its proposal

CRC Water Quality Work Group

23

Lahontan Reservoir: General Analysis of Water Quality Data, 2003-05 (NDEP, 2007)

Trends in Nutrient Loads to Lahontan Reservoir (NDEP 2007)

Preliminary Review of Lahontan Reservoir Total Phosphorus Water Quality Standard (NDEP, 2012)

Fact Sheets Existing Water Quality Standards for Lahontan Reservoir

(NDEP, 2012) Summary of Lahontan Reservoir Water Quality, 2003-05

(NDEP, 2012) Summary of Trends in Nutrient Loads to Lahontan

Reservoir (NDEP, 2012)

Electronic documents available at following:

http://ndep.nv.gov/bwqp/lahontan_rvw.html

Supporting Documents

24

Initial comments Today Submit to Randy Pahl at [email protected]

Focus Group

Future workshops

Meet with your group if requested

Opportunities for Comment

25

Thank YouBUREAU OF WATER QUALITY

PLANNING Bureau ChiefKathy Sertic: (775) [email protected]

WATER QUALITY STANDARDSSupervisorJohn Heggeness: (775) [email protected]

SPECIAL PROJECTSCOORDINATOR

Randy Pahl: (775) 687-9453 [email protected]

NEVADA DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Bureau of Water Quality Planning901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 4001Carson City, Nevada 89701fax (775) 687-9561

http://ndep.nv.gov/bwqp/index.htm